4 ms·
This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves
by vorpalhex 6y ago
This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr.
There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change denialism ends with being false about warrantless surveillance. What starts with trying to limit hate speech frequently ends with picking favorites.
- nazgulsenpai 6y agoThis is extraordinarily well put.
- xg15 6y agoOK, so... now what? You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm. So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?
- koheripbal 6y agoTeach logic. ...at a young age. Fundamental logic and reason. That is the first step. Most of the dangerous content online is visibly illogical, and driven purely on emotion.
- xg15 6y agoYes, and we're all susceptible to emotion to some degree, no matter the age and no matter the education. There has been extensive research done in public relations, advertising and consumer psychology how to manipulate people emotionally and make them act against reason. A bit of training in logical thinking is definitely not enough to counter this.
- diegoholiveira 6y agoWe're living in the age of emotions. Reason and logic are dead.
- vorpalhex 6y agoThey are alive and well. Don't confuse Twitter and social media for the real world.
- ballenf 6y agoThere are costs to living in a free society. Harm from letting people believe falsehoods is one of them. Soldiers dying to protect you from those seeking to destroy you is another. If people aren't free to believe false things and even to try to spread those falsehoods to others, then it's no longer a free society. And one day, a thing you know to be true will be deemed false and you might still think that the problem is just that the wrong people have this power.
- xg15 6y ago"some of you may die, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make." Like, are you aware how high those costs can actually get? Who decided that the costs are worth it? Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it? I absolutely support the right for everyone to have an opinion, but we have to acknowledge that now all opinions are equally valid - otherwise, were regressing from several centuries of empirical science. So at the very least, we have to give people the tools to distinguish opinions with a solid scientific basis from unqualified ones or ones given in bad faith. Fact checkers are one tool in this.
- perl4ever 6y ago>Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it? Not to take sides, but one could argue the costs of the statement you're talking about are insignificant. The assumption would be that anyone who is that easily influenced to do something that severely harms themselves is subject to many such influences and therefore adding or subtracting a single one doesn't change the probability of disaster noticeably in the long run. If a straw can break a camel's back, does that mean burning a million straws saves a million camels? ...but if it can save just one...